LG8 Pixmore Centre, Pixmore Way

The freeholder of the land is the Heritage Foundation and another party has the ground lease. This is another replacement of employment by housing, with no indication to where the replacement employment is to be found. It is also further encroachment of housing onto our main industrial/commercial area

I am writing to express my concerns, hopefully just like many other Baldock residents will in the consultation period, towards the proposed developments on what is currently, rich and diverse rural countryside which comes under the green belt. We, as residents who remain unconvinced about the plans are becoming rather concerned as to whether democracy will prevail in the decision and that logistics and communication appear severely lacking.

I sincerely hope you will take the time and the effort to read through my response. Being a younger individual whose 16 years old possibly 17 by the time you read this, and always lived in Baldock, the views put across may come from a different perspective from what you read on a more regular basis and above all the fact I have different concerns to the 'typical' youngster.

I fully except the fact that we need houses but is this proposal one that has been properly thought out in a logical manner?
After attending the public meeting on the 31st January in Baldock Community Centre I have been made aware of the fact that less that only about a third of land in North Hertfordshire comes under the 'Green Belt' and that green belt should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Have you really considered other options seriously?

This was the question theme among many people on the protest march which certainly helped publicise the topic.
Brownfield sites and liaising with private land owners appear to be far more viable options in the eyes of Baldock residents.
In my opinion, you should consider the idea of adding a far smaller amount of houses over a much larger area. Figures suggest that 12,100 houses are needed in the North Hertfordshire district, between 2011-2031. My theory states that you should add approximately 1500 houses to the 5 major towns, Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage but leaving green belt land alone if possible by making use of brownfields. This would leave around 4600 houses to be spread across the 33 villages and hamlets in the district. This would mean adding approximately only 130 houses to each village. On a map you wouldn't notice a difference and the population density across the district would be more proportional. It was have less of a detrimental effect in specific areas and every getting their fair share in development.

From following the proposals it appears to me that you're taking the 'easy' option and burying your heads in the sand so to speak at the expense of fairness to Baldock residents and the environment. Baldock would be no longer a closed community. Around 3400-3600 houses to be placed in one specific area just seems a little extreme especially for is currently relatively small historic market town with a current population of around 10,000 people. The population density will increase dramatically and I firmly believe that the town itself could not cope unless infrastructure is developed.

Green belt around Baldock is open countryside laden with bridleways and footpaths providing a free leisure facility to improve the health of its people and potentially cut down levels of obesity which in turn will cost the NHS less money. These bridleways will be destroyed but most of all, the views North East of Baldock of will be ruined and we'll never get them back as Hertfordshire becomes one large urban sprawl with Bygrave, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin and Stevenage becoming linked together as one mass of houses.

I have an allotment on the Clothall Road allotment site and with my eyes set on a future in farming, seeing the countryside and tenant farms(the only way of being able to farm in your own right due to land prices unless you have a large sum of cash) built on would be me to tears. I stand and try to visualize the urban development on site BA2 but I can't. The thought of the allotments losing their traditional appearance and increased vandalism due to the increased number of young people stuck for something to do is unbearable. This is because the government and local councils do not push for leisure facilities for young people.
From attending the meeting it sounds as though lots of pieces of paper and pencils are being used.
Have you actually put your wellies and 'high vis' vests on and walked up to your paper proposed sites and physically tried to look at how the development will look and the eye sore it will put in the landscape?

Baldock sits in a dip surrounded by rolling hills. From up on these hills, there would no longer be a view to admire.
The proposed Blackhorse Farm site currently, is home to several successful agricultural businesses producing a wide range of products from things as simple as Free Range local eggs through to large scale combinable and root crop production on what is Grade 2-3 agricultural land (some of the best found in Britain).

These businesses will lose their jobs, livelihoods and the money these farms bring into the local economy would not be any more if this unorganised development goes ahead. All things I've mentioned above are keys elements to Britain's survival and all things the government currently seem fairly keen to support.
The developments on Works Road in Letchworth are not a long term answer and the people who would occupy the houses would just be people who commute into the hubs of London and Cambridge in order to earn a decent wage. This commute business will be struggle given the ludicrous proposals to cut train services.

Less land for food and more people will mean that food miles and quantities needed, will increase due to imports, leading to greater pollution. Importing food is by far, not a long term solution in the 21st century economic situation of Britain and the rest of the world. We need to look into more long term solutions in this world which ministers fail to address. Farming shapes the countryside not houses.

I've already gone into detail about things that link to the environment but the increase in cars, concrete, waste water and electricity usage all pose problems. Waste/run off water will pose a huge problem in terms of flooding in wet years. At least crops use the water in a useful way.
Have you considered sustainability when constructing plans?
If not then here are some ideas solar powered street lights and waste water harvesting and treatment for reuse.
The number of species in our countryside is rapidly decreasing and building on such a vast acreage of land is just going to exacerbate the problem. Farmland ecosystems are vital.
If waste/run off water is left to go off into the rivers rather than being used by crops and animals then it is just go into rivers and flow into the sea where it will become expensive in future to extract. The river Ivell and Weston Hills dry up most years due to over extraction to cope with the ever growing population. This puts huge pressure on river ecosystems.
So, will there/are you going to make sure there will be enough water today, tomorrow or in 50 years' time?

I attend the Knights Templar School and am heavily involved in Sustainability in the school, hence that fact that environmental issues concern me the most as I see the importance of them as my passion lies the countryside.
From my point of view as a student I feel that the communication between schools and the council has been severely lacking and students are making decisions on the topic that are non viable because there's been no encouragement.

Views expressed by the local councillors and local MP's including Sir Oliver Heald seem to display a sense of concern towards the plans. Up to 3591 homes on green belt land doesn't appear viable in current circumstances. Some of my thoughts clearly display this having focused on many points on more of a national scale and what could be done across the whole district.

See attached

See attached

See attached